Sadly, it never has been about adventure and exploration. I recall well the news stories of the 1960's warning us that if we let the Soviets get to the Moon before us that they would use it as a base to launch nuclear missiles against us. It was a silly idea, but it was the reason we spent $25 billion ($130 billion in today's money) going to the Moon.

My guess is there will be a human moon shot about 5 years after Bigelow's space station becomes operational. Even if its only a one person mission with a rocket chair. The person may be an American. If you believe human exploration of the Moon is important how about looking at what *you* need to do to get their.

ta Ralph

Steve Fossett could be the next man on the Moon (SOLO)!

An ultralight trip to the Moon is not so much different that Fossett's recent THREE trips around the Earth (non stop, solo, without refueling).

Three thousand kg in LEO (6600 pounds) should be enough for a one man landing and return. A Falcon IV ($5 million?), plus the lightweight upperstages including a copy of the winning X-Prize Cup, Lunar Lander?

From the energetic standpoint, a Lunar Landing and return is almost a wash with a low energy MARS landing, and return, but the additional life support is significant.

Time line depends on :
Space X success. (Either high reliability, or forcing Russian price cuts)
Sponsorship of high risk ventures (OR "Docu-tainment")
International auction of new interplanetary samples.

Sadly, it never has been about adventure and exploration. I recall well the news stories of the 1960's warning us that if we let the Soviets get to the Moon before us that they would use it as a base to launch nuclear missiles against us. It was a silly idea, but it was the reason we spent $25 billion ($130 billion in today's money) going to the Moon.

The only reason the idea was silly was because nukes are not needed. The moon is on the top of a gravity well. A mass driver can be constructed anywhere there, including the invisible to Earth, farside. Such a system can bombard anypoint on the Earth. It can take advantage of the Earths gravity to get a free boost. For every 3km/sec of velocity an object gets its mass in TNT equivalent. Imagine a streem of 100kg rocks hitting the Earth at 12-15km/sec. Its the ultimate WMD.

This has been known for decades, the problem was moonbases would have been horrendously expensive in the 1960's so the world's nations were happy to sign the Outer Space Treaty (in 1967 if memory serves) which banned military moon bases.

Now, if space transportation becomes cheaper the reason against such bases begins to disappear.

I am not saying anyone really wants military moonbases but you can bet the major powers are going to make sure they have a presence there to make sure no one else builds them.

Starting in LEO you've got to add about 5.8 km/sec to this payload. To
achieve this you need 3,373 kg of propellant along with 560 kg of
structure to contain it. A total of 4,510 kg. to LEO. A Long March or
Proton could launch several.

The rocket belt pushes the whole apparatus and can be used on the lunar
surface to fly around to some degree (300 km range)

A single LOX/LH2 engine (derated RL10) whose exhaust is directed through
two nozzles (rocket belt fashion) to produce 25kN thrust. The bulk of
the LOX/LH2 is contained in jettisonable tanks hung off the astronauts.

The landing on the lunar surface is achieved hang glider style... the
astronauts legs are the landing gear!

TYPICAL JOURNEY:

Launch in a disposable couch and nosecone on top of a Proton rocket.
Separate from Proton upper stage. (3 separate vehicles)
Use laptop computer and GPS to navigate to Lunar Injection point.
Burn off 2,194 kg of propellant to enter transit to moon.
Wait four days. Jettison propellant tanks.
Burn another 258 kg of propellant to enter lunar orbit.
You now carry 1758 kg of propellant and gear.
Leave about 150 kg of propellant and gear in orbit with transponder.
Burn another 400 kg of propellant to land on the moon.
Land with about 1000 kg of propellant and gear strapped to your back.
Remove propellant carriers, etc., to walk or fly around lunar surface.
Don carriers, etc., in preparation to leave lunar surface.
Leave lunar surface.
Rendezvous with supplies in lunar orbit.
Burn engines to return to earth.
Wait four days.
Inflate TPS and enter after removing rocket pack.
Reenter earth's atmosphere.
Jump out of TPS ball with parachute at 60,000 ft.
Parachute to a landing with video/memory disk of journey and rock bag."

*********************

ta

Ralph

rpspeck wrote:

Steve Fossett could be the next man on the Moon (SOLO)!

An ultralight trip to the Moon is not so much different that Fossett's recent THREE trips around the Earth (non stop, solo, without refueling).

Three thousand kg in LEO (6600 pounds) should be enough for a one man landing and return. A Falcon IV ($5 million?), plus the lightweight upperstages including a copy of the winning X-Prize Cup, Lunar Lander?

Surprise Surprise, an Ozzy that can't understand something Ralph! Slightly like how we kick ur ass in the Ashes! ohh low shot!
I don;t get why u need that translating? Thought we taught u how to speak?

Am I supposed to be insulted or amused by your pathetic drivel? Do yourself a favour. Download the free version of Wordpro (http://wordweb.info/) and please use it.

regards

Ralph

Rob Goldsmith wrote:

Surprise Surprise, an Ozzy that can't understand something Ralph! Slightly like how we kick ur ass in the Ashes! ohh low shot! I don;t get why u need that translating? Thought we taught u how to speak?

Sorry Sigurd, just shocked that in a worldwide forum with different countries, dialects and accents there could be someone mocking someone elses. Says a lot realy about international communication. Ah well, endof on my side

Fossett is too much of a world record junkie for my tastes and he's getting a bit too old, but you never know.

I agree with you. For my part--spaceflight is simply too important for humanity to be left to the caprices of the bored rich who are easily distracted by whatever the ltest fad is. That is why space must be part of big institutions and/or those start-ups with the sufficent level of maturity.

What disturbs me is how space advocates talk about all the infrastucture they would like to place on the Moon/Mars, and when I remind them of the big rockets needed to uplift that mass, they balk, and start talking about tiny craft.

Please.

The gaol of space advocates is too find payloads for Ares V, as I see it.

Look at how the Atlas V is handled. That rocket, itself a payload for the AN-124, is moved in one massive piece to its destination. Nobody tinkers it together out of matchsticks here. How can we expect to have large structures in space or on another world if we cannot admit to the wisdom that allows rockets themselves to be moved in very large--dare I say it?--mega-modules.

Even OTRAG, with all of its tubes--will need some type of launch pad and a lot of man-power to rotate it and add tubes.

The only way I see small craft contributing in any useful fashion to uplift would be if a payload of tether material were attached to a fast moving asteroid on a near miss trajectory to do a clean and jerk of a large payload to be yanked into orbit. But this would need stronger nanotubes--seeing that a rather benign Space Elevator may not be able to hold its own weight.

My reservations about Mr Fossett are personal ones only. Explorerers are a mixture of people. I would hardly call Jacques Cousteau, Sir Hurbert Wilkins or Bill Stone the "bored rich".

If you need to justify a transportation system then it needs to be justified on its own merits. Getting to the moon does not require Saturn 5 class rockets. This was known back in the 1960's when NASA had proposals for a Gemini moonshot. This is more so know. Even if a moon base is wanted the requirement for heavy lift is debatable. Spacecraft can be assembled and refueled in orbit or a moonbase built from small inflatable modules.

The idea that space exploration requires a large government institution is a mid 20th Century development. Previously exploration was done by private explorers, sometimes, but not always, with the backing of the government through sponsorship or prizes or by the military. The supposed benefits of the big government approach has lead to no one leaving low Earth orbit for decades.

Regards

Ralph

publiusr wrote:

ralphbuttigieg wrote:

G'day Robert,

Fossett is too much of a world record junkie for my tastes and he's getting a bit too old, but you never know.

I agree with you. For my part--spaceflight is simply too important for humanity to be left to the caprices of the bored rich who are easily distracted by whatever the ltest fad is. That is why space must be part of big institutions and/or those start-ups with the sufficent level of maturity.

What disturbs me is how space advocates talk about all the infrastucture they would like to place on the Moon/Mars, and when I remind them of the big rockets needed to uplift that mass, they balk, and start talking about tiny craft.

Please.

The gaol of space advocates is too find payloads for Ares V, as I see it.

Look at how the Atlas V is handled. That rocket, itself a payload for the AN-124, is moved in one massive piece to its destination. Nobody tinkers it together out of matchsticks here. How can we expect to have large structures in space or on another world if we cannot admit to the wisdom that allows rockets themselves to be moved in very large--dare I say it?--mega-modules.

Even OTRAG, with all of its tubes--will need some type of launch pad and a lot of man-power to rotate it and add tubes.

The only way I see small craft contributing in any useful fashion to uplift would be if a payload of tether material were attached to a fast moving asteroid on a near miss trajectory to do a clean and jerk of a large payload to be yanked into orbit. But this would need stronger nanotubes--seeing that a rather benign Space Elevator may not be able to hold its own weight.

Getting to the moon does not require Saturn 5 class rockets. This was known back in the 1960's when NASA had proposals for a Gemini moonshot.

Which would have been more dangerous. HLLV gives you moonbases-and a good Mars assembly. Five CaLV flights and ISS is done.

.

G'day,

Thats right. Moon gemini would have been very risky in the 1960's. Something similar would not be now. The Apollo command module and
lunar lander massed about 20 tonnes total . They needed a Saturn 5 to lift to the moon. For a minimal moonshot a 1 tonne 1 person capsule a 1.5 tonne rocket chair would do. Total about 3 tonnes. Current rocketry can do the job. Mythical HLLV are not needed.

Moonbases etc need reliable and inexpensive access to space more then any HLLV.